BA 18 Assignment Paper: Business Practices and Policies

Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Business practices and policies
In the case provided, an unemployed female veteran aged 21 years is denied job at Macy’s mall in Fresno, California by Macy’s manager due to the fact that she served in the Army. The incident occurred on March 30th, 2014. The applicant, Army Specialist Kayla Danielle Reyes, had been deployed in Afghanistan and returned recently. The issue being presented in this case is hiring discrimination because the applicant had performed or served in the uniformed services.
What the hiring manager at Macy’s did amounts to hiring discrimination. Some traits of the job applicants are not relevant in determining the candidate’s qualification. It is notable that the hiring manager at Macy’s did not hire Kayla Danielle because of the fact this job candidate had a different mindset as she had been to war. In other words, the hiring manager did not hire this job candidate primarily because she had previously served in the uniformed service rather than because of her qualifications. This is discrimination since Kayla Danielle is not being hired because of a characteristic or criteria other than her qualifications. During the process of hiring employees, discrimination arises whenever the employer or the hiring manager picks or fails to pick to an applicant on the basis of criteria other than the qualifications of the candidate (Gosseries 5). If the manager had failed to hire Kayla Danielle because she did not qualify for the vacant job based on her qualifications rather than based on her previous job as an army officer, then this would not have been discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission forbids discrimination basing on age, genetic information, and skin colour, country of origin, disability, religion and gender (Axelson et al. 242). Other protected groups include persons who have served in uniformed services: they are protected under 3838 USC 4311. Macy’s can be rightfully sued by Kayla Danielle who believes that the company’s hiring manager did not hire her because of unfair employment practices.
Chapter 4311 clearly forbids discrimination against people who serve or have previously served in uniformed services and acts of retaliation (Lippert-Rasmussen 55). Macy’s manager broke the law stipulated under 38 U.S Code Chapter 4311 a. This is because the hiring manager did not hire the job candidate basing on the fact that the candidate had previously served in the uniformed services. It is worth mentioning that according to 38 U.S Code Chapter 4311 a), an individual who has performed in uniformed services should never be denied employment, promotion, employment benefits, or retention in employment by any employer based upon that performance of service (United States Department of Labour 2). The term uniformed service as used under 38 U.S Code Chapter 4311 a) basically denotes the Air National Guard, Armed Forces, and Army National Guard when engaged in inactive duty training, National Guard duty, or in active duty for training, in addition to other grouping of people who have been designated by the United States President during period of national emergency or war (Holden and Rosen 1680). Appl...